Potentialism has so much (um) potential. The exhausted majority indeed lacks a thread, and kudos for stepping up to propose a new starting point. Love the framework, and especially the underlying essence of reframing things from "or" to "and". Potentialism feels deeply rooted in a commitment to increasing overall utility, by ensuring every contributor is at their full strength. I see this clearly as rooted in a common ideology of embracing "win-win" (rights and responsibilities) versus "zero-sum" (hyper-partisan zealots forcing an either/or false choice).
It feels to me that Bridge Grades - our report card for Congress that scores each member on how collaboratively or divisively they govern - can act as a public utility in helping the exhausted majority identify Congressional leaders who are most likely to embrace and lead us toward a pluralistic society fueled by a potentialistic culture.
Nice going, Beacon Project. Eager to follow the revealing of the full series of articles (and keep us mind if you'd consider a guest article).
I for one am exhausted by the same old political conversations. It’s beyond time to come together to build a new vision of the future. If the human brain constantly battled between the right and the left hemispheres, humans wouldn’t be able to function. It’s time to acknowledge that the inheritance of our society should be about both rights and responsibilities.
It’s been a while since I felt really hopeful about our future. But I honestly feel that if we cast off the old labels and narratives we can see that we the people have much more in common then those who profit from our division and polarization would have us believe. 💛
Regarding the philosophy behind potentialism document - "Introducing Potentialism" - I suggest adding a pithy quote representing Adam Smith's moral philosophy and to title that quote "Capitalism." A mixed or hybrid economy that blends a capitalist operating system with embedded socialist values is our future. The Beacon Project expresses communitarian values - same. Corollary 2 quotes speak to individual responsibility for exercising one's innate gift, leaning heavily on democratic and civic values - wonderful. Society also requires a political economy with a moral base for individual gifts to be realized in ways that are economically regenerative. Actually, what would be more impactful, and would not take anything away from Corollary 2, is to add a Corollary 3 page to invoke the responsibility and necessity of our economy to be infused with a moral ethic that financially/intrinsically rewards individual potentialism. Understandably, Beacon Project might not want to promote specific frames like gift economy or solidarity economy or any derivative of late-stage capitalism. However, Beacon Project must challenge the dominant neoliberal logic of profit maximization, resource extraction, and commodification. It can and should platform a collective economic narrative of gratitude, gift sharing, relationship, and communal well‑being over capital accumulation and outsized profits.
As a Political Science major ( 50 years ago!) and as a formal political activist ( having a history of serving positions in both parties over the years) I am always interested in intellectual exercizes which focus on maximizing political efficacy and discovering a Realpolitik that moves towards fulfillment of the American Dream for the highest possible number of citizens.
That being said, I believe we face 3 ominous roadblocks to a concensus for activation of the proposed Potentialism movement:
1. Race: there is a discomforting cohort of the population who are ignorant or rejecting of the data on race differences in IQ ( Blacks: 85, European-Americans and Asian-Americans: 105-115). This reality prevents us from adopting educational and vocational strategies which maximize success and cruelly hold out the promise of MIT and Harvard Law School for those with IQs which simply prevent them from such lofty ambitions.
2. Religion: Those with firmly held religious beliefs which calcify their opinions on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights render them incapable of even considering differential positions, and make compromise unattainable.
3. Class: Those of us who are fortunate enough to claim membership in the Upper Middle Class or higher believe we have earned our status, and are reluctant to consider policies or proposals which seek to dethrone us, financially or socially. This applies to affluent Liberals as well as Conservatives.
Contrary to the traditional American trope. We are NOT all equal, in abilities, talents, and skills.
True success is sometimes inherited, but retaining the trappings normally requires vigilance, hard work, and planning. There MUST be room for both success in Capitalism, as well as failure.
Otherwise, the risk/reward algorythym of the marketplace becomes meaningless.
This article could be sent to schools at every level, churches, gathering places… Thank you, Beacon Project, for developing this and passing it on. It’s important, and however we can each offer our gifts, it is uplifting and hopeful.
The ideas are inspiring, and I too look forward to seeing more. They fit beautifully with the spirit of Braver Angels, where I volunteer actively.
I can tell you labored mightily over every word—especially “potentialism.” But really, is it a word anyone besides us pinheaded intellectuals could love? 🤔
Thanks, Svetlana! Glad to hear you find the ideas promising. Regarding the word “potentialism,” it sounds funny on the ear, doesn’t it? But (our thinking is) so too does every new idea when it’s first encountered. Over time, though, the novelty wears off and it begins to sound second nature—and with it the constellation of ideas it represents.
Sounds very promising Daniel, will be following your project closely. I think the equal focus on rights and responsibilities can reinvigorate collective efficacy and thereby provide strength and resilience in uncertain times, which is just what we need.
Glad to hear it, Jeroen! We agree: finding ways of increasing solidarity while maintaining individual autonomy is the conceptual challenge of our time. We believe potentialism offers a solution to this puzzle.
I've been very interested in the work from More In Common and have cited it in more than a few occasions.
Where I think it misses, and revealed in subsequent follow ups, is that it is ultimately just another way of saying what progressive activists say -- "why can't we always get our way, why are the conservatives still in the way." Of course the EM is not down with those activists for their own illiberalism toward liberals, not just conservatives.
From the start, I never understood why the "traditional liberals" were considered apart of the Exhausted Majority while the "the traditional conservatives" and "devoted conservatives" are not.
The "disengaged" portion of the Exhausted Majority in particular, who prioritizes patriotism, sound a lot like the first-time and infrequent (presidential only) voters from the Trump 2024 coalition that are not showing up in specials.
All of this and more is why I'm skeptical an "exhausted majority" exists at all. I have no doubt there is a 70% of the eligible electorate portion that is sick and tired of the loud bickering between the "progressive activists" and "traditional and devoted conservatives", but I think what has happened since is the traditional liberals are more or less being led by the progressives and enough of them sign up for their candidates (see: AOC, Zohran), but that these local differences will likely travel the other way nationally (see upcoming 2028 Democratic primary split across age and generations).
There is a reason civic-minded moderates have not been able to build out an alternative. It only exists on paper, not in reality.
> …This is part of a larger phenomenon whereby success is marked by titles, salaries, and follower counts. Meanwhile, essential work—such as that performed by teachers, mechanics, and caregivers—is undervalued.
> According to potentialism, the value of one’s gifts does not depend on the number of “likes” they get or the scale of their influence. Instead, they depend on the goodness-of-fit between the capacities of the giver and the needs of the community.
This sounds good, but what does it mean concretely? How do you propose to measure the capacities of the giver, independently of scale or salary?
I think teachers and caregivers get a lot of respect. Most people would agree that these are morally good jobs essential to society. What they don't get is a lot of pay. Do you have a plan to change that, or do you just want to give them a pat on the back?
Reinventing Organizations is a book which describes a positive vision for companies as an alternative to the profit-maximizing machine that is currently trendy. It also gets into the wide-ranging possibilities if its theories were adopted, including in the sphere of politics, but I digress...
One similarity that popped out at me: a fundamental shaper of our societies is the way we see other people. Do we think that people are trustworthy? Are people basically good or bad? Have we stopped trusting people as much as we used to? And how do we respond to that?
In a modern organizations, policies are shaped by the idea that workers are: thieves, lazy, not dependable, not intelligent, motivated solely by self-interest. Therefore they must be managed, incentivized, controlled, and monitored. Any exceptions to this rule are outliers, and candidates for management.
Reinventing Organizations cites research by Douglas McGregor, MIT prof and concludes:
"If you view people with mistrust and subject them to all sorts of controls, rules, and punishments, they will try to game the system, and you will feel your thinking is validated. Meet people with practices based on trust, and they will return your trust with responsible behaviour. Again, you will feel your assumptions were validated."
So what if we believe people are: reliable, self-motivated, trustworthy, intelligent, good, and responsible? And exceptions to this are considered to be outliers, who must be accounted for, but don't override the general assumptions?
We would do things differently. Completely differently.
so... minimally woke capitalism with an infinitesimal dollop of socialist characteristicsc + awkward cultural engineering. i'm afraid (and willing to bet) that this'll be a failed project. you're insufficiently radical. it's unclear what worldview explains this. is it some mess of ayn rand-ism processed through shroom-consciousness with an enchanted resistance to seeing humans as not magically free sacred souls, but as evolved biophysical mechanisms because that'd hit it home that everything's luck, which makes the ayn rand component feel stupidly cruel? desert & responsibility are only real as tribal ape brain concepts for coping in inter/intragroup conflicts & post-hoc rationalizing coercion/harm/oppression.
it'd make more sense to just recommend copying the scandinavian countries' systems instead of goofy bs like 'redistribute respect' and gift-developing as 'right' and 'responsibility'. the left-right systems/institutions vs. individual choices framing is also just philosophically lazy. systems/institutions just are labels for all that individual behavior all together. weak emergence ftw!
overall, i give this project a 2/14 and predict that it won't make the kind nor scale of difference it meekly envisions.
Having lived, worked and studied in Norway ( I am fluent in German and Norwegian), I believe the Scandinavian Model is great: IF, you have a Country which is homogenous ( racially, economicially, religiously, socially).
There is a common ethos in Norway towards success, social obligation, and a strong work ethic which abhors indolence and penury.
Potentialism has so much (um) potential. The exhausted majority indeed lacks a thread, and kudos for stepping up to propose a new starting point. Love the framework, and especially the underlying essence of reframing things from "or" to "and". Potentialism feels deeply rooted in a commitment to increasing overall utility, by ensuring every contributor is at their full strength. I see this clearly as rooted in a common ideology of embracing "win-win" (rights and responsibilities) versus "zero-sum" (hyper-partisan zealots forcing an either/or false choice).
It feels to me that Bridge Grades - our report card for Congress that scores each member on how collaboratively or divisively they govern - can act as a public utility in helping the exhausted majority identify Congressional leaders who are most likely to embrace and lead us toward a pluralistic society fueled by a potentialistic culture.
Nice going, Beacon Project. Eager to follow the revealing of the full series of articles (and keep us mind if you'd consider a guest article).
Absolutely, Brad! It's all about finding that both/and without sacrificing force, vision, and clarity. We think potentialism can do that.
Posted this to FB along with this comment:
I for one am exhausted by the same old political conversations. It’s beyond time to come together to build a new vision of the future. If the human brain constantly battled between the right and the left hemispheres, humans wouldn’t be able to function. It’s time to acknowledge that the inheritance of our society should be about both rights and responsibilities.
It’s been a while since I felt really hopeful about our future. But I honestly feel that if we cast off the old labels and narratives we can see that we the people have much more in common then those who profit from our division and polarization would have us believe. 💛
Regarding the philosophy behind potentialism document - "Introducing Potentialism" - I suggest adding a pithy quote representing Adam Smith's moral philosophy and to title that quote "Capitalism." A mixed or hybrid economy that blends a capitalist operating system with embedded socialist values is our future. The Beacon Project expresses communitarian values - same. Corollary 2 quotes speak to individual responsibility for exercising one's innate gift, leaning heavily on democratic and civic values - wonderful. Society also requires a political economy with a moral base for individual gifts to be realized in ways that are economically regenerative. Actually, what would be more impactful, and would not take anything away from Corollary 2, is to add a Corollary 3 page to invoke the responsibility and necessity of our economy to be infused with a moral ethic that financially/intrinsically rewards individual potentialism. Understandably, Beacon Project might not want to promote specific frames like gift economy or solidarity economy or any derivative of late-stage capitalism. However, Beacon Project must challenge the dominant neoliberal logic of profit maximization, resource extraction, and commodification. It can and should platform a collective economic narrative of gratitude, gift sharing, relationship, and communal well‑being over capital accumulation and outsized profits.
I believe in THIS! Very well articulated. SIGN ME UP!
As a Political Science major ( 50 years ago!) and as a formal political activist ( having a history of serving positions in both parties over the years) I am always interested in intellectual exercizes which focus on maximizing political efficacy and discovering a Realpolitik that moves towards fulfillment of the American Dream for the highest possible number of citizens.
That being said, I believe we face 3 ominous roadblocks to a concensus for activation of the proposed Potentialism movement:
1. Race: there is a discomforting cohort of the population who are ignorant or rejecting of the data on race differences in IQ ( Blacks: 85, European-Americans and Asian-Americans: 105-115). This reality prevents us from adopting educational and vocational strategies which maximize success and cruelly hold out the promise of MIT and Harvard Law School for those with IQs which simply prevent them from such lofty ambitions.
2. Religion: Those with firmly held religious beliefs which calcify their opinions on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and transgender rights render them incapable of even considering differential positions, and make compromise unattainable.
3. Class: Those of us who are fortunate enough to claim membership in the Upper Middle Class or higher believe we have earned our status, and are reluctant to consider policies or proposals which seek to dethrone us, financially or socially. This applies to affluent Liberals as well as Conservatives.
Contrary to the traditional American trope. We are NOT all equal, in abilities, talents, and skills.
True success is sometimes inherited, but retaining the trappings normally requires vigilance, hard work, and planning. There MUST be room for both success in Capitalism, as well as failure.
Otherwise, the risk/reward algorythym of the marketplace becomes meaningless.
This article could be sent to schools at every level, churches, gathering places… Thank you, Beacon Project, for developing this and passing it on. It’s important, and however we can each offer our gifts, it is uplifting and hopeful.
The ideas are inspiring, and I too look forward to seeing more. They fit beautifully with the spirit of Braver Angels, where I volunteer actively.
I can tell you labored mightily over every word—especially “potentialism.” But really, is it a word anyone besides us pinheaded intellectuals could love? 🤔
Thanks, Svetlana! Glad to hear you find the ideas promising. Regarding the word “potentialism,” it sounds funny on the ear, doesn’t it? But (our thinking is) so too does every new idea when it’s first encountered. Over time, though, the novelty wears off and it begins to sound second nature—and with it the constellation of ideas it represents.
Sounds very promising Daniel, will be following your project closely. I think the equal focus on rights and responsibilities can reinvigorate collective efficacy and thereby provide strength and resilience in uncertain times, which is just what we need.
Glad to hear it, Jeroen! We agree: finding ways of increasing solidarity while maintaining individual autonomy is the conceptual challenge of our time. We believe potentialism offers a solution to this puzzle.
Sounds lovely, the jargoning aside, but without real examples, even hypothetical, it’s just a lot concept dancing. Awaiting the next installments …
Awesome, Jim! We look forward to digging deeper in coming weeks. Stay tuned...
I've been very interested in the work from More In Common and have cited it in more than a few occasions.
Where I think it misses, and revealed in subsequent follow ups, is that it is ultimately just another way of saying what progressive activists say -- "why can't we always get our way, why are the conservatives still in the way." Of course the EM is not down with those activists for their own illiberalism toward liberals, not just conservatives.
From the start, I never understood why the "traditional liberals" were considered apart of the Exhausted Majority while the "the traditional conservatives" and "devoted conservatives" are not.
The "disengaged" portion of the Exhausted Majority in particular, who prioritizes patriotism, sound a lot like the first-time and infrequent (presidential only) voters from the Trump 2024 coalition that are not showing up in specials.
All of this and more is why I'm skeptical an "exhausted majority" exists at all. I have no doubt there is a 70% of the eligible electorate portion that is sick and tired of the loud bickering between the "progressive activists" and "traditional and devoted conservatives", but I think what has happened since is the traditional liberals are more or less being led by the progressives and enough of them sign up for their candidates (see: AOC, Zohran), but that these local differences will likely travel the other way nationally (see upcoming 2028 Democratic primary split across age and generations).
There is a reason civic-minded moderates have not been able to build out an alternative. It only exists on paper, not in reality.
There's a lot to like here. But:
> # Status and Respect
> …This is part of a larger phenomenon whereby success is marked by titles, salaries, and follower counts. Meanwhile, essential work—such as that performed by teachers, mechanics, and caregivers—is undervalued.
> According to potentialism, the value of one’s gifts does not depend on the number of “likes” they get or the scale of their influence. Instead, they depend on the goodness-of-fit between the capacities of the giver and the needs of the community.
This sounds good, but what does it mean concretely? How do you propose to measure the capacities of the giver, independently of scale or salary?
I think teachers and caregivers get a lot of respect. Most people would agree that these are morally good jobs essential to society. What they don't get is a lot of pay. Do you have a plan to change that, or do you just want to give them a pat on the back?
Reinventing Organizations is a book which describes a positive vision for companies as an alternative to the profit-maximizing machine that is currently trendy. It also gets into the wide-ranging possibilities if its theories were adopted, including in the sphere of politics, but I digress...
One similarity that popped out at me: a fundamental shaper of our societies is the way we see other people. Do we think that people are trustworthy? Are people basically good or bad? Have we stopped trusting people as much as we used to? And how do we respond to that?
In a modern organizations, policies are shaped by the idea that workers are: thieves, lazy, not dependable, not intelligent, motivated solely by self-interest. Therefore they must be managed, incentivized, controlled, and monitored. Any exceptions to this rule are outliers, and candidates for management.
Reinventing Organizations cites research by Douglas McGregor, MIT prof and concludes:
"If you view people with mistrust and subject them to all sorts of controls, rules, and punishments, they will try to game the system, and you will feel your thinking is validated. Meet people with practices based on trust, and they will return your trust with responsible behaviour. Again, you will feel your assumptions were validated."
So what if we believe people are: reliable, self-motivated, trustworthy, intelligent, good, and responsible? And exceptions to this are considered to be outliers, who must be accounted for, but don't override the general assumptions?
We would do things differently. Completely differently.
so... minimally woke capitalism with an infinitesimal dollop of socialist characteristicsc + awkward cultural engineering. i'm afraid (and willing to bet) that this'll be a failed project. you're insufficiently radical. it's unclear what worldview explains this. is it some mess of ayn rand-ism processed through shroom-consciousness with an enchanted resistance to seeing humans as not magically free sacred souls, but as evolved biophysical mechanisms because that'd hit it home that everything's luck, which makes the ayn rand component feel stupidly cruel? desert & responsibility are only real as tribal ape brain concepts for coping in inter/intragroup conflicts & post-hoc rationalizing coercion/harm/oppression.
it'd make more sense to just recommend copying the scandinavian countries' systems instead of goofy bs like 'redistribute respect' and gift-developing as 'right' and 'responsibility'. the left-right systems/institutions vs. individual choices framing is also just philosophically lazy. systems/institutions just are labels for all that individual behavior all together. weak emergence ftw!
overall, i give this project a 2/14 and predict that it won't make the kind nor scale of difference it meekly envisions.
Wow, 2/14 odds of success! We had given ourselves a 1.5/17. 😜
Having lived, worked and studied in Norway ( I am fluent in German and Norwegian), I believe the Scandinavian Model is great: IF, you have a Country which is homogenous ( racially, economicially, religiously, socially).
There is a common ethos in Norway towards success, social obligation, and a strong work ethic which abhors indolence and penury.